Royals’ Payroll Spike Proves David Glass Isn’t a Problem

facebooktwitterreddit

Mandatory Credit: Denny Medley-USA TODAY Sports

Generally speaking, I don’t like to talk about baseball payrolls. It’s not that I avoid talking about money in baseball altogether, but the discussion of payroll often seems kind of overemphasized. We’ve seen teams win with payrolls of $70 million, and we’ve seen teams lose with payrolls of $200 million. There are several ways of building a winner, as long as the front office is creative enough to make the right moves.

I also think it’s kind of silly for fans to insist an owner should spend more money than he takes in, as if this businessman doesn’t have a right to make a profit. Sure, it’s fun to see a team full of stars, but an owner who doesn’t allow a massive payroll shouldn’t necessarily be looked at as some kind of tightwad. Many owners are billionaires, so they could absolutely afford to spend more on the big league payroll, but I’m not going to shake my fist just because a guy doesn’t want to do so.

I do want to see minor league players make enough money to cross the poverty line, and there are some things about the collective bargaining agreement I’d like to see changed, but as far as big league payrolls go, it’s a mostly irrelevant topic for me. Today, I’m going to break my rule.

That brings me to David Glass and the 2015 Royals.

Glass has a reputation for being a terrible, cheap, only-cares-about-the-bottom-line kind of owner, and before Dayton Moore came to Kansas City, that reputation was mostly deserved. Since 2006, however, Glass has been much more willing to spend his money on the development process, and the major league team. The money hasn’t always been spent wisely – Jose Guillen, Jeff Francoeur, and Yuniesky Betancourt all say hello – but Glass has done more than enough to provide Moore with the resources to win. This is an inarguable fact.

And yet, even as recently as a week ago, I still saw fans demanding that Glass open up his wallet more, and that he shell out a ton of money for free agents. Royals fans were acting as though a payroll of less than $100 million is some kind of impossible path to the playoffs, and that Glass should just sell the team now if he’s not going to run the team at a financial loss. They insisted that Glass had to spend more money.

As things stand right now, the Royals are looking at an Opening Day payroll of about $117 million. How’s that for increased spending?

More from KC Royals News

Glass has green-lighted $68.3 million in free agent contracts this offseason, including 2015 commitments of nearly $35 million, depending on the outlay of Edinson Volquez‘s contract. Those amounts don’t factor in incentives that could tack on another eight figures. Is he spending enough money yet?

The Royals opened the 2014 season with a payroll just north of $92 million, which was in the bottom half of the league. The playoff run resulted in increased revenues, but they play in the 2nd smallest market, and had revenues in the bottom 5 of the league before the playoffs, so it’s not as if October put the Royals on par with the Dodgers.

The team’s owner and front office have said that they put the money they make back into the team, and that certainly appears to be the case. A $25 million payroll spike is significant, and should silence any remaining “Glass is too cheap!!!” complaints. Barring a trade of someone like Greg Holland or Omar Infante (which isn’t out of the question), the Royals’ payroll should be in the top half of the league next season, while revenues will likely lag well behind.

I’m not going to pretend that Glass has always been a great owner, or even that he’s a great owner now. But it is past time to stop worrying about how much money he’s allowing to be spent on the major league club. It’s been that way for a few years now, but the recent free agent acquisitions should put those concerns to bed.

There is no question that Glass has given the Royals enough money to spend. The only question is whether it’s being spent effectively, and that’s a debate for another day.